| Literature DB >> 28850607 |
Antonio Agüera1, In-Young Ahn2, Charlène Guillaumot1, Bruno Danis1.
Abstract
Antarctic marine organisms are adapted to an extreme environment, characterized by a very low but stable temperature and a strong seasonality in food availability arousing from variations in day length. Ocean organisms are particularly vulnerable to global climate change with some regions being impacted by temperature increase and changes in primary production. Climate change also affects the biotic components of marine ecosystems and has an impact on the distribution and seasonal physiology of Antarctic marine organisms. Knowledge on the impact of climate change in key species is highly important because their performance affects ecosystem functioning. To predict the effects of climate change on marine ecosystems, a holistic understanding of the life history and physiology of Antarctic key species is urgently needed. DEB (Dynamic Energy Budget) theory captures the metabolic processes of an organism through its entire life cycle as a function of temperature and food availability. The DEB model is a tool that can be used to model lifetime feeding, growth, reproduction, and their responses to changes in biotic and abiotic conditions. In this study, we estimate the DEB model parameters for the bivalve Laternula elliptica using literature-extracted and field data. The DEB model we present here aims at better understanding the biology of L. elliptica and its levels of adaptation to its habitat with a special focus on food seasonality. The model parameters describe a metabolism specifically adapted to low temperatures, with a low maintenance cost and a high capacity to uptake and mobilise energy, providing this organism with a level of energetic performance matching that of related species from temperate regions. It was also found that L. elliptica has a large energy reserve that allows enduring long periods of starvation. Additionally, we applied DEB parameters to time-series data on biological traits (organism condition, gonad growth) to describe the effect of a varying environment in food and temperature on the organism condition and energy use. The DEB model developed here for L. elliptica allowed us to improve benchmark knowledge on the ecophysiology of this key species, providing new insights in the role of food availability and temperature on its life cycle and reproduction strategy.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28850607 PMCID: PMC5574559 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0183848
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
DEB parameters values for Laternula elliptica.
These parameters are given for a temperature of 273.15 K.
| Parameter | Symbol | Value | Units |
|---|---|---|---|
| Maximum structural length | 8.426 | cm | |
| Maximum surface area-specific assimilation rate | 87.752 | J d-1 cm-2 | |
| Volume-specific cost of maintenance | 6.861 | J d-1 cm-3 | |
| Volume-specific cost of structure | 2371 | J cm-3 | |
| Fraction of energy allocated to somatic maintenance and growth | 0.659 | - | |
| Maturity at birth | 3.371 | J | |
| Maturity at puberty (onset first gametogenesis) | 2116 | J | |
| Scaled functional response at Marian Cove | 0.332 | - | |
| Scaled functional response at Potter Cove | 0.384 | - | |
| Scaled functional response at Rothera | 0.8 | - | |
| Energy conductance | 0.023 | cm d-1 | |
| Maturity maintenance rate coefficient | 0.001 | d-1 | |
| Post-metamorphic | 0.341 | - | |
| Pre-metamorphic | 7.227 | - | |
| Arrhenius temperature | 4832±1306 | K | |
| Arrhenius temperature at lower limit | 19966±1.5x105 | K | |
| Lower temperature limit | 271±1.74 | K | |
| Density of structure | 0.09 | g cm-3 | |
| Weight-energy coupler for reserves | 4.35x10-5 | g J-1 | |
| Molecular weight of reserves | 23.9 | g mol-1 | |
| Chemical potential of reserves | 550 | kJ mol-1 | |
1 Estimated using the covariation method
2 Estimated from data.
3 Fixed
Zero-variate data used for the estimation of the DEB model parameters.
MRE: mean absolute relative error.
| Variable | Obs. | T (K) | Pred. | Units | MRE | Reference | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age at birth | ab | 23 | 274.15 | 21.6 | d | 0.06 | [ |
| Age at puberty | ap | 730 | 274.15 | 557 | d | 0.23 | [ |
| D-larva shell length at birth | Lb | 0.02 | n/a | 0.02 | cm | 0.03 | [ |
| Shell length at puberty | Lp | 2.87 | n/a | 3.19 | cm | 0.11 | [ |
| Maximum shell length | Li | 8.7 | n/a | 8.19 | cm | 0.06 | [ |
| Dry weight at puberty | dWp | 0.18 | n/a | 0.19 | g | 0.05 | [ |
| Maximum dry weight | dWi | 3.21 | n/a | 3.19 | g | 0.01 | [ |
| Gonadosomatic Index | GSI | 0.22 | 272.7 | 0.21 | - | 0.03 | [ |
1 birth is set at the moment the animal starts or is able to feed. D-larva
2 start of first gametogenesis.
3 maximum size reached by the species when there is no food limitation. Taken as the upper 95% quantile of population size
4 maximum gonad index for an animal of the maximum size, gonad index being defined as gonad weight/total wet weight.
* dry weights correspond to ash free dry weights.
Fig 1DEB model outputs and uni-variate data used for DEB parameter estimation.
A. Total ash free dry weight (no gonads) as a function of shell length [23]. B. Size at age from shell growth rings at Potter Cove [26]. C. Respiration at size at Marian Cove [23] at a temperature of 274.15 K. D. Respiration at temperature for a standard individual of 7.5cm shell length [39] excluding assimilation (starved individuals). Dots are data from field observations or laboratory experiments. Blue line represents DEB model output. MRE is the mean absolute relative error.
Fig 2DEB state variables as biomass for different levels of scaled reserves (e), for a standard individual of 7.5cm shell length.
Gonad weight for Rothera was probably overestimated as e = 0.8 was used for the whole gonad growth season.
Fig 3Estimated seasonal variation of energy reserves, metabolism and reconstructed gonad growth of L. elliptica at Marian Cove during 1998–1999.
A. Temperature measured in the field. Red line is a fitted smoother (See S3 File), shaded area is the 95% confident interval (ci) of the smoother from [24]. B. Reconstructed scaled energy reserve. Dots and bars are mean values of e and the 95% ci yielded directly from field observations of length-weight (Eq 2). Line and shaded area respectively correspond to the mean and 95% ci of gam smoother (see Methods and S3 File). C. In blue calculated mobilisation flux (ṗ) for current energy reserves (e) (see S1 File for formulation, figure 3.B). In red calculated maintenance costs, as somatic maintenance (ṗ) plus maturity maintenance (ṗ) for a population with shell length distribution observed by Ahn et al. [24]. Both corrected for current temperature at day (Fig 3A). D. Gonad ash free dry weights. Dots and bars are the mean and the 95% ci of the field observations [24]. Line and shaded areas are DEB model predictions mean and 95% ci considering a population with the same shell length distribution as used by Ahn et al. [24] and using the approximated e from Fig 3A. Gonad production was corrected by temperature (see S1 File).
Fig 4Estimated food levels for L. elliptica in Marian Cove during 1998–1999 and measured sediment fluxes (Khim et al. [52]).
A. Reconstructed scaled functional response (f) from energy reserves dynamics considering temperature. For both, lines are mean and shaded area is the 95% ci. B. Chlorophylls concentration [24] C. Particulate organic carbon flux. D. Lithogenic particle flux. C & D. measured at Marian Cove at 30m depth. For details see Khim et al. [52].